Starks - Breakaway Speed?

[VegasPackFan]

This question has been lingering in my mind for a little while so I thought I would pose it to the forum peeps.

Does Starks have breakaway speed to take it to the house from anywhere on the field? I don't recall seeing him do anything like that yet. What is his longest run or catch so far in his short career?

I like the kid a ton, but I don't know what the scouting report is on him in this regard. Is he more of a grinder?

[Brando19]

Starks is what Grant isn't...the son of a bitch that's going to knock someone on their ass and keep going. Breakaway speed? I doubt it...but don't get in his way.

[Smidgeon]

Well, Grant has breakaway speed, and Starks just seems way more slippery. If we could combine the two...

[Harlan Huckleby]

what smidgeon said

[King Friday]

I don't see either guy as having breakaway speed. Both have adequate speed to be very productive RBs, but they aren't keeping DCs up at night. True breakaway speed is only held by a handful of guys in the league. I'm sorry, but Grant and Starks aren't those guys.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Grant's pretty damn fast straight line, North-South.

[Joemailman]

Starks ran a 4.5 40 at the combine which was about 6th overall among RB's, but slower than Grant's 4.43 in 2005. His 20 time was faster than Grant's, so he does have very good mid-range speed. He can certainly get into the secondary, but I doubt he has the speed to blow past a free safety.

[King Friday]

Grant's pretty damn fast straight line, North-South.

Not saying he's slow. Breakaway speed to me is a guy who can get to the corner and run past everyone up the sideline. Grant couldn't think about that at this point...maybe 4 years ago. Sure...give him a crease off tackle and he can go for 70. However, I'm sure that can be said for well over half of NFL RBs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Supposedly Mark Ingram dropped to bottom of first round because he does't have top gear. Guess we'll see Thursday whether that top speed is so essential, I sure don't think so. Elusive, change of direction with decent speed is what you need.

[dahammer001]

I think James Starks can take it to the house In colllege he had a 92 yard run to his credit.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Breakaway speed is hard to quantify. Before the injury Grant could take it the distance, so I'd say he had breakaway speed. He doesn't have game changing speed though--like Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, and Jamaal Charles. I think Starks might have breakaway speed. Not sure. Watching his highlights in college, I thought he did. Last year, I'd say no. Maybe he's healthy this year and capable of taking it to the house.

Brandon Jackson, on the other hand, had a wagon hooked to him.

[Lurker64]

Grant can't make people miss, but he can run away from people in the open field. That's what separates him from your elite speed backs, those guys have short area quickness that Grant doesn't.

Starks is more of a traditional workhorse back. He will get you at least 3 yards with good frequency, but when he breaks one DBs will catch him from behind.

In terms of "open field speed" Grant's last 20 yards of his 40 (40 time minus 20 time) was 1.78. Starks' last 20 yards of his 40 was 1.96. (Chris Johnson scored 1.83, Jamaal Charles 1.85, Felix Jones 1.85, Adrian Peterson 1.82, Darren McFadden 1.80, etc.) Starks has less "breakaway speed" than Grant and pretty much all of your "elite" NFL RBs.

[OS PA]

I looked back at the Starks highlights from last year a couple of days ago, and the thing that struck me was what he was running against. Teams were playing pass and Starks was flying into the secondary. He could have broken a couple of the runs for HUGE gains had teams been stacking the box, but as long as we're a passing team, we can expect to see 5-10 yard runs from Starks and Grant. Now, I could see Starks running through some safeties on the way to breaking a big one.

[rbaloha1]

Does Starks have breakaway speed like Chris Johnson or Peterson -- No.

However Starks shall have many big runs due to shiftiness, cutback abilities, reading of blockers, vision and the great downfield blocking from the receivers.

[red]

I think James Starks can take it to the house In colllege he had a 92 yard run to his credit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaMmHWpXwZg

for his size he has alot of speed. could be a lethal combination

[Lurker64]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaMmHWpXwZg

for his size he has alot of speed. could be a lethal combination

No offense to Tom Crabtree or Ben Roethlisberger, but you don't find a lot of Miami Red Hawks in the NFL these days.

[Harlan Huckleby]

thanks for the clip. Starks looked like a bean pole in college.

[Deputy Nutz]

Peterson and Johnson are the only two backs in the NFL that can run away from an NFL Cornerback. Very few guys in the NFL have the Speed to beat the angles of the game, especially with the hash marks so close together. Even the longer runs busted by Peterson and Johnson happen because they break tackles at the second level.

[Brandon494]

Peterson and Johnson are the only two backs in the NFL that can run away from an NFL Cornerback. Very few guys in the NFL have the Speed to beat the angles of the game, especially with the hash marks so close together. Even the longer runs busted by Peterson and Johnson happen because they break tackles at the second level.

Might want to add Jamaal Charles, CJ Spiller, Reggie Bush, Felix Jones, McFadden, McCoy, and Best to that list of RBs who can outrun an NFL CB.

[RashanGary]

Well, Grant has breakaway speed, and Starks just seems way more slippery. If we could combine the two...

Speed - Grant ran a 4.43 at the Combine, Starks a 4.50. At this age, it's a push.

Power - Grant is knocked for not breaking tackles, but he puts his pads down and delivers a blow. Last year I'd give the edge to Grant. Looking at Starks this year and Grant having lost 5 lbs, I'm guessing it's a push.

Decisiveness/zone instinct - Subjective. Harry Sydney on the fan 107.5 says this is one of Grant's strengths. He hits the hole, hits it hard and churns out steady yards. Lurker said Grant is home run or miss. Sydney says he's steady. I'm with Sydney. Grant had one run over 40 yards in 2009 yet he averaged over 4 per carry. That's steady not home run or miss.

Breaking tackles / Making guys miss - Big advantage Starks. Grant is north/south. He can't avoid contact, so tacklers typically get a good shot on him. He runs with great north/south lean, but his lateral balance after that first cut is nil.

Catching the ball - Advantage Starks. Did it alot in college and Grant is proven to be blah at it.

Summary - Grant will get you the quick, tough yards. He runs north/south, has good instincts and speed. He can't really use his speed because he's typically down at first contact as he can't avoid direct hits. He's a good fit in our offense because he keeps us in 2nd and 6 or 7 and gives AR steady down and distance.

Starks is similar, but he can also make guys miss. He should be able to break more 20+ yard runs and more 40+. The difference between 4.4 and 4.5 once a back has a lead is minimal. With Starks agility, he should get away more and break more. He also catches the ball better. With Starks build, it seems smart to split carries. He's long and runs a little high.

I give the edge in talent/skill to Starks, but he's also a bigger injury risk. The Grant/Starks duo should be able to wear teams down and keep the both of them more fresh as the season wears on.

Grant is still a good fit because our passing game is our bread and butter. Grant still keeps us in good down and distance. Starks just adds to the show.

[Brandon494]

Harry Sydney is fucking annoying and has no clue what he is talking about half the time.

[Brandon494]

I honestly believe we'll have a top 10 rushing attack this season. Grant and Starks as the one two punch will be hard to contain and Green can step right in if one of those two guys have to miss a couple of games. We are so stacked on offense just thinking about it makes me go from 6 to midnight.

[Zool]

We are so stacked on offense just thinking about it makes me go from 6 to midnight.

It's currently high noon on my sundial.

[Deputy Nutz]

Might want to add Jamaal Charles, CJ Spiller, Reggie Bush, Felix Jones, McFadden, McCoy, and Best to that list of RBs who can outrun an NFL CB.

Maybe, but they can't run away from the angle of pursuit.

[Lurker64]

Maybe, but they can't run away from the angle of pursuit.

But Peterson and Johnson can?

Based on combine data: Jamaal Charles (4.38), Reggie Bush (4.37), C.J. Spiller (4.27), Darren McFadden (4.33), and Jahvid Best (4.34) are all faster than Adrian Peterson (4.40). None of them have the combination of "physical" and "fast" that Peterson has shown, but "running away from a CB" is about speed, not power.

[Deputy Nutz]

It is breaking a long run, not exactly having to run away from people. Thanks for posting 40 times though, because they don't actually mean a hill of beans on a football field. Getting from point "A" to point "B" on a football field, and no one does it better than Peterson. It isn't a race.

[Pugger]

I honestly believe we'll have a top 10 rushing attack this season. Grant and Starks as the one two punch will be hard to contain and Green can step right in if one of those two guys have to miss a couple of games. We are so stacked on offense just thinking about it makes me go from 6 to midnight.

I'm hoping Grant and Starks can be this team's Levens and Bennett from our 96 SB team.

[MadScientist]

I just hope the line can actually open some damn holes for the backs. Other than that one run in the KC game, the line looked scary bad in the preseason.

[Packgator]

What is his longest run or catch so far in his short career?

Starks longest run during the regular season was 16 yards. Longest run during playoffs was 27 yards vs Philly. Not sure about longest catch.

[RashanGary]

Peterson has about 5500 yards. He has about 8,000 to go until he catches Ladanian Tomlinson and Tomlinson will continue to rack up yards for a year or two more. Chances are, Tomlinson will finish with a thousand or two more than he has now. He had 900 last year alone.

To catch Tomlinson, Peterson would have to rush for 1,200 yards every year for 8 years (until he's 34 years old)

We can all sit around sucking Peterson's dick, but he's got a long way to go before he shows the extended dominance that Tomlinson has shown

And Tomlinson has over 4,000 yard receiving and 144 touchdowns. (compared to 1200 and 52)

Nothing wrong with Peterson. He can be one of the most dominant RB's for a short time, or he could end up being a dominant runner for a long time. So far he has 4 good years. He's a great player, but I'm not afraid of no Peterson. We'll whip his ass every year he's in Minnesota and I have a feeling he'll be getting progressively worse from here on out.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harry Sydney is fucking annoying and has no clue what he is talking about half the time.

Not sure what you are refering to specifically, but I really disagree with this. If Sydney is annoying, its because he rubs homers the wrong way, he's not a fan. He knows his stuff.

[pbmax]

Not sure what you are refering to specifically, but I really disagree with this. If Sydney is annoying, its because he rubs homers the wrong way, he's not a fan. He knows his stuff.

He is downplaying Sydney's contention (as per an earlier JH post) about Grant being steady, as opposed to the feast or famine back, who either gets long runs or gets next to nothing.

I don't think Grant delivers a blow when running generally. That doesn't mean he can't at times, but mainly he gets what's blocked. I do agree with JH's translation of Sydney in that he generally makes good decisions about which hole and when. But he does not run people over and he does not break his way to the second or third level. I see Grant go down on first contact too often. Its not a crisis, he usually falls forward, but its limited.

Starks may not have a top gear, but he punishes people and really moves a pile while going forward at the end. If the Packer's must have a back that will not break many long runs, I prefer Starks to Grant. However, Grant is tremendous at protecting the football, something Starks will need to demonstrate before he would be allowed to take the job full time this year.

[Brandon494]

Not sure what you are refering to specifically, but I really disagree with this. If Sydney is annoying, its because he rubs homers the wrong way, he's not a fan. He knows his stuff.

Well I find the way he talks very annoying and he use to bash TT back in the day so he must not know that much. I seriously won't even listen to the show if I know hes going to be on it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I've never heard Sydney talk. I can't even remember whether I agree with him much or not, but I remember reading his column somewhere and thught it was .... smart. He is opinionated and willing to ruffle feathers. I thought he backed up his opinions well, but maybe he was wrong a lot.

[King Friday]

I'm hoping Grant and Starks can be this team's Levens and Bennett from our 96 SB team.

You could cut off an arm from both Levens and Bennett and they would still both be more prolific in the passing game than either Grant or Starks will be. From a purely running standpoint, you may be right in that both groups are north/south runners who usually get the most of what is given to them. However, Grant/Starks has no chance at making the impact on the offense that Levens/Bennett did in the mid 90s because the offenses are completely different. Holmgren's RBs were what made the WCO go by providing a continual threat in the flat to keep DEs and OLBs honest. Our current offense hardly even utilizes the backs in the passing game, which I feel is due to their lack of ability as receivers. McAllister caught a good number of passes early in his career in a McCarthy directed offense, so it isn't like MM is prone to ignoring a capable receiving threat in the backfield.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You could cut off an arm from both Levens and Bennett and they would still both be more prolific in the passing game than either Grant or Starks will be. as membership chair of the James Starks Fan Club I have to take great exception. Starks can catch. We'll have to see.

[King Friday]

as membership chair of the James Starks Fan Club I have to take great exception. Starks can catch. We'll have to see.

Perhaps, but the guy only has 5 NFL receptions to his credit so far...so he's got a ways to go from reaching Levens/Bennett territory.

[VegasPackFan]

I see Starks as the kind of guy that you think he is tackled and then he gets 7-10 more yards and you wonder how he managed to do that. I have always seen Grant as a good open field runner but he goes down at contact.

[Partial]

But Peterson and Johnson can?

Based on combine data: Jamaal Charles (4.38), Reggie Bush (4.37), C.J. Spiller (4.27), Darren McFadden (4.33), and Jahvid Best (4.34) are all faster than Adrian Peterson (4.40). None of them have the combination of "physical" and "fast" that Peterson has shown, but "running away from a CB" is about speed, not power.

Combine shombine. Johnson and Peterson are ridiculously fast. AP is not getting caught from behind if it's Usain Bolt chasing him. Some people have an extra gear that only gets invoked when needed. AP and Johnson are those guys. Football speed in pads on a field and training for a sprint on a track are two very different things.

edit: Okay, Usain Bolt will probably catch him, but c'mon, AP is a monster and ridiculously fast. I have no doubt he's as fast as any of the guys listed.

[Lurker64]

Just because some guy is ridiculously fast doesn't mean that some other guy isn't also ridiculously fast and faster than the first guy. Spiller is easily faster than Peterson, but Spiller is 5-11 196 and Peterson is 6-2 217... obviously Peterson is a more effective runner and overall a better player, but that doesn't mean he's faster than Spiller.

All of those people (Peterson, Johnson, Charles, Bush, Spiller, McFadden, and Best) are ridiculously fast. Some are faster than others. The really good football players there are Peterson and Johnson (and probably Charles).

[HarveyWallbangers]

AP is not getting caught from behind if it's Usain Bolt chasing him.

Peterson gets caught from behind. Not often, but a fair amount of times. I thought he actually lost a little of his "deep speed" since his first or second year, but sadly he looks great this preseason. Even during his rookie season, Nick Collins caught him from behind. (And I felt like that was Peterson at his fastest.) There are guys faster than Peterson. Not many faster than Johnson.

See 1:37


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d802d2d9c/Packers-23-Vikings-16

[HarveyWallbangers]

Phillip Buchanan caught him from behind also.


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81433d3c/WK-10-Can-t-Miss-Play-Buchanon-punch-out

[RashanGary]

Buncha homers here. Starks is a punishing back?

Nah, he's good and fine, about like Grant. He's not going to be some Packer great or even greater than Grant has been for us. We all bitch and whine about Grant getting tackled, and I do it too, but he gets in there and churns out yards (unlike Brandon Jackson last year.) In our offense, 2nd and 7 / 3rd and 4 is a valuable thing. We don't need a star RB. We need a guy who can keep AR in managable down and distance. Until Grant went down, we had that. When Grant went down, our offense suffered until Starks showed up. That contrast from Jackson to Starks was no greater than the contrast for Grant to Jackson. We just ended up winning the SB and everyone has starry eyes about Starks because he was there for the ride but mostly because he wasn't Brandon Jackson.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I actually think Grant has a lot of ability (pretty fast, good one cut guy, decisive, relatively big), but he's always left me thinking he could be better. He often hits the wrong hole (lacks vision at times), and he often goes down too easily on first contact. Nevertheless, he's been solid. I don't think Starks will be an all-time Packer great, but I think he has a bit more potential as an all around RB than Grant. Mainly because I think he can be similar as a runner but he should be much better as a receiver. I just don't think he'll last with his upright running style. He's already taken a few huge shots this preseason. He could last, but I'd say the odds are against him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

He often hits the wrong hole (lacks vision at times), and he often goes down too easily on first contact. Yes. Of course the stats don't lie, Grant has been very productive, and Starks will be hard-pressed to match his yardage. Starks is a little younger than Grant, hopefully he can fill Grant's shoes someday, if not better him.

[Zool]

Holmgren's RBs were what made the WCO go by providing a continual threat in the flat to keep DEs and OLBs honest. Our current offense hardly even utilizes the backs in the passing game, which I feel is due to their lack of ability as receivers.

So I decided to compare last year's team to the 96 team to see if this was a truism or not.

1996 RB stats:
89 catches
605 yards

2010 RB stats:
63 catches
484 yards

Difference per game:
1.6 catches
7.56 yards.

Because the Packers run only 3 instead of 4-5 designed screens per game, the yammering heads in the booths still say the Packers don't run the screen like they used to. In the future I'm hoping they simulcast NFL games on a channel where all you get is field noise. Announcers are the worst thing to ever have happen to sports.


-Edit-
For the sake of argument, I decided to dig a little further, pre-superbowl years there were 100+ catches per season by the backs. There were quite a few designed screens back then as opposed to the outlets we see today.

2009:
63

2008:
65

2007:
95

2006:
104

2005:
113

1998:
102

1997:
96

1995:
112

1994:
127

I still hate announcers and their idiocy.

[mraynrand]

Announcers are the worst thing to ever have happen to sports.

Why do you think I went to Discovery channel?
http://azsportstalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Ron-Pitts-Image.jpg

[pbmax]

1996, 6.8 YPC
2010, 7.7 YPC

Interesting, considering how many screens I remember being successful. Though in my dotage I might be confusing Ruettgers/Brown/Wilkerson and Bennett with Clifton and Green.

[pbmax]

Announcers are the worst thing to ever have happen to sports.

I blame radio.

[Partial]

Peterson gets caught from behind. Not often, but a fair amount of times. I thought he actually lost a little of his "deep speed" since his first or second year, but sadly he looks great this preseason. Even during his rookie season, Nick Collins caught him from behind. (And I felt like that was Peterson at his fastest.) There are guys faster than Peterson. Not many faster than Johnson.

See 1:37


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d802d2d9c/Packers-23-Vikings-16

Fair enough Harv. I stand corrected. I agree he has slowed some, I think it was due to bulk. I haven't seen him this preseason but that's a scary proposition.